레위기 11:47의 주석

להבדיל TO MAKE A DISTINCTION — Not that one should only learn the laws, but it is a command that you should know and recognize the differences and be expert in them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 6).

TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN. This means that we should distinguish between all things mentioned above, between the unclean and the clean, with regard to impurity[through contact]. AND BETWEEN THE ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN. This is connected with the word “soul” mentioned [in the preceding verse], thus meaning: “and between the living animal that may be eaten.” Scripture is thus stating that we should distinguish as far as eating is concerned, between the living animal that may be eaten according to the Torah in the waters and upon the earth,²⁷⁸Verse 46. and the animal in them that may not be eaten. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis said:²⁷⁹Torath Kohanim, at end of Shemini. “And ‘hachayah’ (the beast) that may not be eaten. The Sages say, this establishes a prohibition against eating a [forbidden type of] beast.”²⁸⁰For even though chayah (beast) is included in the term beheimah (cattle), as explained above in Verse 24, yet Scripture mentioned here a specific prohibition with regard to a forbidden chayah. If so, there is a special negative commandment regarding it.
Now Rashi wrote: “To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean. Is it necessary to tell us to distinguish between the cow and the ass? Have they not clearly been defined already [by distinguishing signs]? But the meaning is: [to make a distinction between] that which is forbidden for you and that which is permitted for you,²⁸¹I.e., between that which has been rendered forbidden for you because you have not slaughtered it properly, and that which has been rendered permitted for you through proper ritual slaughtering (Mizrachi). between the case of an animal of which only half of the windpipe was cut, [in which case, even if he cut through the whole gullet, it may not be eaten], and the case of an animal of which the greater part of the windpipe [or the entire windpipe] was cut through, [in addition to the gullet, or the greater part of it being cut through, which is permitted to be eaten].” There [in Tractate Chullin]²⁸²Chullin 293a. it is taught: “And how much is there between half and the greater part of it? As much as a hair’s breadth,” [and it is this which requires ‘making a distinction’]. Do not be disturbed here because of that which they said there in the Gemara²⁸²Chullin 293a. that it must be “a greater part which is apparent to the eyes” [thus a mere hair’s breadth would not be sufficient], for the meaning of that was only in order to exclude the opinion of the Sage²⁸³The name of the Sage is Rav. who says that half and half is treated as if the majority [was cut through]; therefore they said that the part cut through must actually be a greater part, which is apparent to the eyes, not a half which we only treat in our minds [as the greater part], and we say that “the greater part” was cut through since the part not cut through is not larger than it [the part which was cut through]. But so long as more than half was [actually] cut through, it may be eaten, even if it be only by as much as a hair’s breadth, as is clearly explained in that Beraitha,²⁸²Chullin 293a. and as it emerges from the discussion of the Gemara.
Tazria

ובין החיה הנאכלת, “and between the animal that may be eaten;” Rashi (quoting Torat Kohanim) writes that actually we would have expected the Torah to write:בין צבי לערוד, i.e. between a gazelle (a permitted species of free roaming mammal, and the wild ass, (a “non kosher” free roaming mammal). Seeing that these two species could not possibly be mistaken for another, seeing they do not look alike at all, the meaning of the verse must be “to distinguish between permitted species which display symptoms that would make it “treifah” (injuries) and others displaying similar symptoms which however do not result in that animal being pronounced treifah.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if these symptoms are below the knee joint, the symptom is ignored and the animal remains “kosher” and can be slaughtered and eaten. If, however, the symptom is above the knee joint, the animal can no longer be eaten even if slaughtered forthwith. People nowadays are very particular in their attitude to all these definitions of symptoms of a terminal disease. The very fact that the halachah recognizes a term such as טרפה כשרה, “treifah which is kosher, creates some confusion. An example of such a “kosher” symptom of ”treifah” symptoms would be an animal whose windpipe and gullet have been cut but not cut through, or instances when a small hole pierces the lung of the animal, such a hole not being necessarily fatal within 12 months. The question arises there that seeing the lung is directly dependent on the windpipe, damage to both would appear to be especially serious. The subject is discussed in Chulin 32, and basically, if the slaughtering proceeded to the point where it is deemed completed, [most of the windpipe and most of the gullet. Ed.] this animal will not be considered as treifah unless another major problem such as a pierced lung is present. Similarly, these sages discuss that if an animal has 5 legs instead of 4 and the fifth has an injury that, if it occurred on any of the other 4 legs would have made it treifah, whether this is a case of “treifah” that is treated as kosher. It would appear that such interpretation of the written text here is excessive.